I'll back up SUbear and ORRange because this is nonsense. Goodine not being good enough as a freshman BUT also having a promising future are not mutually exclusive opinions. Both can be true, and are true, which is why the staff was probably disappointed to see him go. This team was fighting an uphill battle for a tourney spot for much of the season, which was attainable up until the last couple games. To do that, he had to play his best guys.
(1) Disagree. This team was floundering and inconsistent and at best were looking at a longshot NIT bid. JB did a great coaching job, especially stomping UNC in the ACCT, but playing his starting backcourt 37 mins a game was foolish and IMO, unnecessary. That also, is not mutually exclusive.
It's at least a coherent argument to say that our team wasn't very good so Goodine should've gotten more time to develop.
(1) Bingo. This is the main gist of my argument.
However it's emphatically disingenuous to say that Goodine could do the same things Jg3 and/or Buddy could do last season. I don't think any single person can rationally state Goodine deserved to take minutes from Jg3 or Buddy.
(2) To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven: "Deserves got nothing to do w/ it".
That's pure speculation based on nothing but delusion or an agenda (Alsacs, I don't disagree with you that 200 minutes isn't enough time to fully aid to a player's development but it IS enough time to determine if said player can help you win now, in my opinion).
(3) It's only "speculation" if as you say, "you believe that's enough time to determine if a player can help you win now". I don't believe that's enough time to make that determination. 200 minutes of spot duty every other game shows nothing, maybe flashes at best, which we saw a few times with BG. Our defense especially was better when BG played the top of the zone- that was obvious. So he wasn't a total bust but who just walked on the court and face-planted every time. But I'm no HOF'er, so what do I know?
You (not you specifically Alsacs) can't throw away 200 minutes of actual numbers because it's the only tangible asset to use as a backing for an argument regarding whether a kid should play or not.
(4) And why is that? Maybe because that's all that was available as a metric because...he wasn't getting PT?
To be sure, Goodine didn't pass the eye-test in games either, but for the sake of having a strong argument, that's subjective and shouldn't be used on its own. The fact of the matter is, this team wasn't bad enough to sacrifice winning for development.
(5) That's also a subjective statement. IMO, the team was plenty bad, and at times that could be traced directly to the backcourt where, also IMO, BG could've proved valuable if allowed to develop.
As you noted Bombay, "this isn't your father's SU" when really, it'd be more accurate to say this isn't your father's College Basketball. The game is different and kids don't stick around like they used to. If you haven't noticed, college basketball as a whole is seeing a record number of transfers for a variety of reasons. With the impending rule of a one-time transfer on the horizon, the transfer numbers will become even more extreme. Expect to have 1-2 kids transfer each and every year. It's a bummer Goodine left, I'm sure JB and the rest of the staff weren't expecting it and I'm confident Goodine will be a starting guard at Providence in his career. But JB played the guys that gave him the best chance of winning, and that's his job. Not to appease players so they stick around the next year.
(5) Agree w/ this part. My pet peeve w/ JB isn't specifically about BG, he's just the latest example of a short bench philosophy that I absolutely detest. Another good example would be BJ Johnson, who got no run at SU, but became a very good player elsewhere.
One last thing, it's common for programs to tighten their rotation to 7/8 guys. It's rare to see a school play more than that unless you're 2015 Kentucky with 10 all Americans ready to use at your disposable. If Goodine performed better, I'm sure he would have played more, but let's stop this narrative that JB maliciously keeps guys buried on his bench when there's really nothing to point to Goodine warranting more minutes.
(6) I don't see where anyone has said it was done "maliciously", unless I missed something. Rather I'd say its bullheaded, stubborn, shortsighted, impetuous, and lazy. Developing a bench in-season is not easy, and obviously its not something JB prefers to do. His 2-3 Zone is hard enough to learn as it is, and introducing new parts to the equation can make it a harder and longer job to pull off. Fair enough. That's who he is and has been for over 40 years, but as a fan I have never agreed with that take. We've won in his system, but IMO, this is one of his main coaching deficiencies. A short rotation has knee-capped seasons before, and that threat looms ever year. He does not do bench. And also as a fan, of his and of the program, I will continue to biotche and moan about it...as is my right. Good talk.